[quote]w2097 wrote:
The cuts were disproportionate, just read any damn fiscal report. Two thirds went to the richest people in the nation and 20% to corporations. These last years were of lowest revenue in many decades, creating huge deficits and weakening the economy.
And now these cuts have to be payed off so either someone’s got to do alot of shopping or someone’s going to get taxed up to their asshole.
Damn, the economy is going to shit and you guys are raising your hands “It benefitted me, it benefitted me!!”. Come on.[/quote]
I’d like to talk about the 1st paragraph. I am sick of hearing that “Bush took a $5.6 billion surplus and turned it into the largest deficit in US history”. first of all, if you account for inflation, this isn’t the largest deficit in US history. 2nd, the $5.6 surplus never existed; it was a projection of the government, based on revenue over the next 10 years… which included the HUNDREDS of internet companies, which we all know contributed jack shit to the economy. the real number was somewhere closer to $3 trillion; things beyond bush’s control (9-11) and things which had been going on for years and suddenly exploded (coporate fraud scandals) further ate away that surplus that never existed. bush then “spent” the remaining surplus on a tax cut, but is it really spending to return money to those who were taxed?? Yes we are spending a lot now due to the dual wars (won’t argue the necessity of those at this point), and this is deficit spending, but it wasn’t from a 5.6 trillion surplus.
now to what you actually said, haha…
lowest revenue in many decades is not surprising, considering almost all of the 80s and 90s was an economic boom (some of which was imagined, the internet companies). Furthermore, perhaps the high price of oil has more to do with economic plight than the tax cuts (again, not going to mix foreign with domestic policy. i am arguing that perhaps the wars which have caused oil to skyrocket to nearly all-time highs is more of a reason for the sluggish economy)